|
|
<< DoD offering admin privileges on .mil Web sites | Main | The Bright Spot of the Night >> January 28, 2003SOTU- Gutting the EconomyHere is the idiocy of the night: "I will send you a budget that will increase discretionary spending by only 4% next year, about as much as the average family's income is expected to grow. And that is a good benchmark for us, since federal spending should not rise any faster than the paychecks of the American families."Aside from the stupidity and heartlessness of cutting spending in a recession, when the need for government help expands precisely because family incomes are dropping, the basic statement is economically illiterate. IF the population stayed the same year to year, benchmarking government spending to family income might make sense. But if the population is expanding, the demand for services, the number of children in schools, the number of police needed, and so on-- will automatically expand even if income stays the same. And with more people working (okay, well not under Bush, but under any competent President), tax revenue should automatically increase with a greater population. Just to deliver the same service on a per capita basis, government spending has to increase at the same rate of inflation PLUS growth in the population. Anything else is a cut in services. Which is what Bush is proposing in the middle of a recession. This is the most anti-human, economically suicidal economics possible. Posted by Nathan at January 28, 2003 09:25 PM Related posts:
Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsHe just repeated that the tubes were suitable for nuclear weapons. I guess if you're going to lie, lie big. Posted by: John Isbell at January 28, 2003 09:52 PM Check out Gary Locke's reply - he actually said that the top 1% makes over $300,000 a year! Oh, to finally hear those words on TV. Posted by: John Isbell at January 28, 2003 10:25 PM "Aside from the stupidity and heartlessness of cutting spending in a recession, " Where is your brain? A 4 percent increase is an INCREASE Posted by: brad reedy at January 30, 2003 09:49 PM That's funny, brad, because the GOP was all over how spending less on Defense than they liked was not an increase, even if it was more money. Seems like they understood the concept of 'inflation' then. And they called it a tax increase when it looked like their tax cuts wouldn't go through. Pretty inconsistent, eh? Here's a thought experiment: what say we increase your income -- salary, allowance, whatever -- by a penny a year, from now until 2035. Happy now? Well fed? Warm enough? (If not, just wrap up in some good old fuzzy math. Don't mind the holes -- they just let in the fresh, clean air of common sense.) Posted by: Kip at January 31, 2003 12:26 PM I think Shrub's economic plan, as well as Brad's understanding, is based on New Math. Posted by: stumpy at February 17, 2003 05:52 PM I think Shrub's economic plan, as well as Brad's understanding, is based on New Math. Posted by: stumpy at February 17, 2003 05:52 PM pissing Posted by: roma at August 24, 2004 05:38 AM Post a comment
|
Series-
Social Security
Past Series
Current Weblog
January 04, 2005 January 03, 2005 January 02, 2005 January 01, 2005 ... and Why That's a Good Thing - Judge Richard Posner is guest blogging at Leiter Reports and has a post on why morality has to influence politics... MORE... December 31, 2004 December 30, 2004 December 29, 2004 December 28, 2004 December 24, 2004 December 22, 2004 December 21, 2004 December 20, 2004 December 18, 2004 December 17, 2004 December 16, 2004
Referrers to site
|